FROM

It is not wrong to care and interact with animals in my opinion. It
enriches our lives, as you say. Part of caring for their needs means keeping
them in protected quarters, protected from predators obviously. My resued
chickens go willingly into their coop at sundown. I lock up the doors behind
them. They come out in the morning to enjoy the day in the yard. This is
part of providing for their basic needs while allowing them to express their
natural behavior as much as possible. Failure to care for them in such a
manner would be neglect — the opposite of the animal rights position I know
that seeks to protect and provide for animals who depend on us for their
very survival.

A few days ago some nice lady wrote me to tell me that there were over
700 comments on an article of mine on care2.com about how we have not
evolved to eat animals. In typical fashion, the commentators of Care2 went
completely off topic, some apparently looking to discredit me by claiming
that my keeping of adopted hens was hypocritical to my position on animal
rights. Then today I received a message from one of these commentators,
asking me to clarify my position on keeping animals as companions and how it
contradicts her understanding of some animal bill of rights which prohibits
humans from having animal companions. Here is the main part of her message
and my response:

The commentator’s message to me:

… how can you justify keeping chickens while promoting animal rights?
Whether they are rescues or not, you enjoy interacting with them, their
beauty, their behaviour, and no doubt their rich poop in your garden.
According to the Bill of Animal Rights, that’s personal gain, and both
“enslavement” and “exploitation”. I presume you lock them up at night, to
protect them from predators and the cold night temperatures? That’s
“incarceration”, according to the Bill. I do not support the Bill: I think
it is insane. I think people have reached a stage of empathy and
intelligence because of our close contact with animals – mostly the animals
of higher intelligence, which happen to be carnivores. Animal abolitionists
want to end all ownership of all animals, and you are promoting that while
keeping and enjoying chickens. This strikes me as extremely hypocritical,
but I would be pleased to hear your side of the issue.

My response:

Sure. I’d be happy to explain what I believe on this subject. I’m not sure
what animal bill of rights you are referring to but, regardless, I do not
believe in any way that humans must stop interacting in all ways with other
species in order to honor our moral obligation to them. That would be about
as ridiculous as holding the position that humans must not interact with
other humans simply due to the fact that we abolished human slavery. Our
socially acceptable relationship with other humans is no longer one of
master and slave. We can also interact with animals in the same way without
the need to own them as property.

Look, the fundamental belief behind animal abolition is simply that animals
are not our property, our resource to buy and sell, any more than humans
are. Instead, they have an inherent value of their own, and they value their
own life, regardless of what we think their life is worth to us.

The current property status of animals ensures that their property owners
will have the right to do with their animal property whatever they see fit.
In the case of chickens, consider a recent case of a chicken farm in
California where the owner, claiming he could no longer afford to stay in
business, left his flock of 50,000 egg laying hens stuck in battery cages to
die of slow starvation, one of the most painful forms of death in which each
organ fails slowly. When the animal rescue efforts discovered the situation
and got access to the farm, they found most of the birds emaciated and
starved to death and some suffocated in their own excrement. About 4,000
were rescued and re-homed to sanctuaries. Indeed it went down in history as
the largest animal rescue effort in California history.

Now the fact that animals continue to be bred as commodities by some who
profit from this activity does not change our moral obligation to them from
the abolitionist position. The belief is that it is our responsibility to
care for those domesticated animals that are already here, those that exist
as a direct result of our deliberate breeding practices. We brought them
into this world in the first place and so it is therefore 100% our
responsibility to provide for their needs.

If we seek to have companion animals in our lives, we should adopt and not
buy. Those that buy animals as pets rather than adopt one of the millions
that are in shelters waiting to die, are supporting an industry that simply
profits from breeding animals as commodities, contributing to overpopulation
and suffering, all so some breeders can turn a profit. It also reinforces
the mindset of animals as objects, commodities. But animals are not objects.
Animals are sentient beings. We are animals too, just a different species,
and should honor their right to live free of exploitation. That’s the basis
of animal rights.

To highlight the difference between owner and guardian, consider this
analogy of child rearing. When raising children, we must have them do
certain things against their will. We must have them go to bed at certain
times, eat certain foods to keep them healthy, go to school, etc. — even if
they don’t want to do these things. This is all considered “the right way to
raise them” so that they become responsible adults. Would you consider that
immoral or “incarceration”? Of course not.

Now on the other hand, consider the scenario where child traffickers are
exploiting children as property, buying and selling them on the black
market. This is legally and morally unacceptable. Now, consider what happens
when we replace children as the victims with animals. Just because the
victims are another species does not somehow give us a right to use them as
property and yet today the status of animals as property ensures that they
will be treated in any way we see fit. But we don’t have to own them as
property. We can be guardians of those animals already in need of a loving
home, giving them a second chance at life, providing for their needs and
having loving relationships with them. Ask yourself, if you were a
domesticated animal, which scenario would you prefer? How would you want to
be viewed, treated?

So to conclude, it is not wrong to care and interact with animals in my
opinion. It enriches our lives, as you say. Part of caring for their needs
means keeping them in protected quarters, protected from predators
obviously. My chickens go willingly into their coop at sundown. I lock up
the doors behind them. They come out in the morning to enjoy the day in the
yard. This is part of providing for their basic needs while allowing them to
express their natural behavior as much as possible. Failure to care for them
in such a manner would be neglect — the opposite of the animal rights
position I know that seeks to protect and provide for animals who depend on
us for their very survival.

Those that “incarcerate” (to use your expression) animals and force them to
produce a resource for them are simply using them as commercial property. If
and when this form of animal slavery is abolished, the breeding of animals
to serve as commodities, including the breeding of millions of unwanted pets
who end up in shelters, will do much to address the problem of animal
suffering and overpopulation that we see on such a massive scale today.

Fair Use Notice: This document, and others on our web site, may contain copyrighted
material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners.
We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use
of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use,
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.